Tower block fire - london

Its not as black and white for me as to whether the regs are right or wrong and/or if peoples interpretation of them is incorrect. Industry has said for years that the Building Regulations need an overhaul, they are out of date, unclear and clauses refer to clauses which in turn refer to clauses which then refer you to an external BS document. Its no wonder people get things wrong.
 
LOAM said:
Its not as black and white for me as to whether the regs are right or wrong and/or if peoples interpretation of them is incorrect. Industry has said for years that the Building Regulations need an overhaul, they are out of date, unclear and clauses refer to clauses which in turn refer to clauses which then refer you to an external BS document. Its no wonder people get things wrong.
Click to expand...
Quoting this one for truth. They're horrendous.
 
wolfie138 said:
if you read the article you'd aee the zinc was more retardant than aluminium
Click to expand...

Does it?

Earlier planning documents suggest the original plan was for zinc cladding with a fire-retardant core.
Click to expand...

The core of both will have been the same, the skin of the cladding is not fire retardant, nor does it offer any form of fire protection.
 
Firestar_3x said:
Does it?

The core of both will have been the same, the skin of the cladding is not fire retardant.
Click to expand...

The BBC article has been updated and goes on to say:

"Earlier planning documents suggest the original plan was for zinc cladding with a fire-retardant core.

Residents had also been told their new cladding would be made of zinc. Despite their differences, both types of cladding have the same official fire rating"
 
One element of this that isn't being discussed is the imput from residents.

Those living in the building as Council tenants would have had the costs of the cladding work paid for by the Council, but those leaseholders who own their flats, and private landlords subletting would have had to pay their share.

It will be interesting to see if any complained about the expense of the works when they were proposed and carried out. Often that is the reason for cost-savings like this to happen.
 
I've not been following this story for a bit. why Is the cladding the focus of the fire? Is it solely down the the cladding as to how the fire spread? From the looks of the photos it looks like the fire spread internally as opposed to the cladding... Although I'm sure the crappy cladding didn't help

Seems like all the blame is gonna go on the cladding instead of the safety regs, escape procedures and checks which I personally think would have contributed more. But then again I'm no expert.
 
ubersonic said:
If it turns out the insulation in the original spec cladding was fire resistant then whoever made that change will be in big trouble (unless they can prove the contractors were asked to ensure the new cladding met the same standards as the original spec ofc).
Click to expand...

People are going to get hung up on value engineering (I hate that term, it turns my stomach) but theres only one reason you go from zinc to aluminium. That BBC article does say;

Earlier planning documents suggest the original plan was for zinc cladding with a fire-retardant core.

Residents had also been told their new cladding would be made of zinc. Despite their differences, both types of cladding have the same official fire rating.
Click to expand...

This investigation is going to be very frustrating for some people I think because they are going to interpret what is very standard industry practice as either error or malicious intent. Its also not going to look to deeply into certain areas either and I think that will annoy people.

I'll put my money where my mouth is though and say no one will be prosecuted on this because its not a failing in one area, its been a bit of perfect storm scenario.
 
LOAM said:
People are going to get hung up on value engineering (I hate that term, it turns my stomach) but theres only one reason you go from zinc to aluminium. That BBC article does say;



This investigation is going to be very frustrating for some people I think because they are going to interpret what is very standard industry practice as either error or malicious intent. Its also not going to look to deeply into certain areas either and I think that will annoy people.

I'll put my money where my mouth is though and say no one will be prosecuted on this because its not a failing in one area, its been a bit of perfect storm scenario.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much how it will happen. The regulations if not explicit will have been loose enough to become open to interpretation, which cannot then be chalked up as being a malicious intent to kill residents. Moreover it would be just as difficult to open it up and say it was incompetence because technically the regs were adhered to as materials that were BS accredited and met the requirements were allegedly used . The net result will effectively be a whitewash and then the next thing will be massive riots. People are angry, aggrieved and want answers and to a certain extent want vengeance . This investigation will give them none of the above and I can pretty much see a lot of the public taking matters into their own hands.
 
wildman said:
The regulations if not explicit will have been loose enough to become open to interpretation, which cannot then be chalked up as being a malicious intent to kill residents. Moreover it would be just as difficult to open it up and say it was incompetence because technically the regs were adhered to as materials that were BS accredited and met the requirements were allegedly used.
Click to expand...

The regulations are actually quite explicit, the cladding used on Grenfell should not have been used. The question it comes down too is, did the person who selected the cladding know it didn't comply with the regulations and use it anyway to reduce costs, or did they make an honest mistake. The issue there is how could you ever prove the former without them admitting it, and in the case of the latter where do you go from there, granted if their mistake cost lives there is an argument of negligence but if it is a mistake that a "reasonable man" would be likely to make given the information available then that usually protects people from negligence. As far as that goes the data sheet for the product does give the impression it has good fire protection values when this is completely untrue but that is because it highlights the products pros and not it's cons which is normal for almost any product, though having said that you would have expected them to want buyers to know that the more expensive FR boards are better protected against fire than the PE boards, but I guess not lol.

Like LOAM said, perfect storm.
 
ubersonic said:
The regulations are actually quite explicit, the cladding used on Grenfell should not have been used. The question it comes down too is, did the person who selected the cladding know it didn't comply with the regulations and use it anyway to reduce costs, or did they make an honest mistake. The issue there is how could you ever prove the former without them admitting it, and in the case of the latter where do you go from there, granted if their mistake cost lives there is an argument of negligence but if it is a mistake that a "reasonable man" would be likely to make given the information available then that usually protects people from negligence. As far as that goes the data sheet for the product does give the impression it has good fire protection values when this is completely untrue but that is because it highlights the products pros and not it's cons which is normal for almost any product, though having said that you would have expected them to want buyers to know that the more expensive FR boards are better protected against fire than the PE boards, but I guess not lol.

Like LOAM said, perfect storm.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, the cladding was said to have a class 0 rating, the best you can get. The specification sheets for the reynobond PE cladding panels also shows it conformed to the requirements, at least that is what the current narrative is stating. Earlier in this thread i stated that the manufacturer had stated that these panels should not be used on building over "x" floors / height. But on going back and looking into this I can only see evidence that this statement was released after the Grenfell incident and subsequently the panel has now been withdrawn from sale for use on high rises. So saying that the panels shouldn't have been used is subjective as technically it met the necessary requirements at the time. If that really isn't the case then there are a lot of people that are going to jail and McDonald is correct in saying this is murder. So which is it ?
 
ubersonic said:
The regulations are actually quite explicit, the cladding used on Grenfell should not have been used. The question it comes down too is, did the person who selected the cladding know it didn't comply with the regulations and use it anyway to reduce costs, or did they make an honest mistake. The issue there is how could you ever prove the former without them admitting it, and in the case of the latter where do you go from there, granted if their mistake cost lives there is an argument of negligence but if it is a mistake that a "reasonable man" would be likely to make given the information available then that usually protects people from negligence. As far as that goes the data sheet for the product does give the impression it has good fire protection values when this is completely untrue but that is because it highlights the products pros and not it's cons which is normal for almost any product, though having said that you would have expected them to want buyers to know that the more expensive FR boards are better protected against fire than the PE boards, but I guess not lol.

Like LOAM said, perfect storm.
Click to expand...


However the bbc is saying the zinc and aluminium boards offer the same fire protection

Despite their differences, both types of cladding have the same official fire rating.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom